it's unparsimonious — wonderer1

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories. They just shouldn't take precedence. But, the "brain-as-receiver" theory is as old as time and has some explanatory power so I like that it's not being written off.

While I hear this argument as strong, it is actually not all that clear and decisive imo. Your analogy between radiowaves and consciousness(waves?) doesn't hold very well at all. It works on the surface, but we know so little about consciousness that to assume it would behave the same way in those contextual scenarios, as radiowaves, is certainly beginning to look like bad reasoning. That said, as above, it's still one of the further-down-the-list ones. All we do know about the brain can still obtain if the 'receiver' type of theory is in some way true (i.e in some way, consciousness is received by the brain..). It's also quite fun, so I really appreciate you making a thorough response in good faith there. Unsure why Sam got upset tbh.

I think, for me, it's a bit simpler: Not needing ethics would be a goal in this context. No human seems to be the only possible way for that to obtain. Therefore, antinatalism leads to the ultimate ethical goal of never needing ethics.

There are many internal pains, sore muscles, stiffness, headaches, stomach aches, and pains of other organs. I don't think it's proper to call such pains a sensation of touch. — Metaphysician Undercover

These are all examples of physical touch, though? These are all situations where some physical force exerted on the pain receptors has triggered a signalling cascade to your brain. Maybe there's more to be said, but I don't see a different other than in sort of spatial locale. I can hurt my tongue by running it along the edges of my front teeth, as an example. The tongue is a muscle.

I also do not think this proposed distinction between pain and discomfort is useful. What one person calls discomfort, another would call pain. What is subjective is the proposed distinction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is shying away from the real meat here. It's not a distinction. Pains are generally uncomfortable, but not always. Discomfort is largely not painful (without the former being the case, if you see what i mean). They come apart and are distinct, but I'm not trying to put them in a relation to one another.

Do you not have internal pains? These are not the result of any of the five known senses. You are not touching your stomach when you feel a stomach ache — Metaphysician Undercover

Addressed above, A stomach ache, generally, is the physical (sensory) event causing pain internally (though, you're actually describing discomfort here so I'm not sure your objection works anyway - internal "pain" is generally hte result of an actual physical aberration - say, a torn stomach lining. All of these feelings arise from sensory data, internal or external. I think you are insinuating that internal pain is not 'caused'? What could it be caused by if not sensory data (just, from within, not without)).

You start with the faulty assumption that pain is produced from the sense of touch, and you proceed from that false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

You say it's false - i think you haven't shown that at all. I'm unsure you've even shaken my position with what you've said...

Pain is not produced from the sense of touch, as internal pains demonstrate. — Metaphysician Undercover

Dealt with, and I disagree with your account of pain. It seems plainly wrong, empirically speaking.

If you knew some of the science about how pain is supposed to be an interaction between the brain and the inflicted part of the body, through the medium of the nervous system, you would recognize that your proposition is very likely false. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do. And that is actually exactly why it appears to be true to me. What are you specifically referencing here? I ask, because all we know about pain seems to violate your position in many ways.
Some excerpts that are apt here:

"Nociception refers to ... processing of noxious stimuli, such as tissue injury and temperature extremes, which activate nociceptors and their pathways.
...
"The receptors responsible for relaying nociceptive information are termed nociceptors; they can be found on the skin, joints, viscera, and muscles.
...
"Pain perception begins with free nerve endings ... The multitude of different receptors conveys information that converges onto neuronal cell bodies in the dorsal root ganglion (stimulus from the body) and the trigeminal ganglia (stimulus from the face). There are 2 major nociceptive nerve fibers: A-delta fibers and C-fibers. A-delta fibers are lightly myelinated and have small receptive fields, which allow them to alert the body to the presence of pain. Due to the higher degree of myelination compared to C-fibers, these fibers are responsible for the initial perception of pain. Conversely, C-fibers are unmyelinated and have large receptive fields, which allow them to relay pain intensity.
...
"The body is also capable of suppressing pain signals from these ascending pathways. Opioid receptors are found at various sites ... The descending pain suppression pathway is a circuit composed of (the part missing here doesn't matter, i'm just connecting the following to the whole piece) .. It suppresses information carried via C-fibers, not A-delta fibers, by inhibiting local GABAergic interneurons."

It then speaks about how in some complex pain disorders, the pathway is aberrated and signals cross, weaken, intensify etc... due to a couple of conditions, but describes them in the above terms.

This is how Tylenol is thought to work, by affecting the part of the brain which sends the pain signal. — Metaphysician Undercover

This does not seem to be the case, at all. Unfortunately, it doesn't even seem reasonable to suggest that the brain sends a "pain" signal to the injured area. How would that even work? Where does it land? What does it do? Cause the area to simply relay more pain signals to the brain? This is getting a little silly, tbh.

It seemed to me, though I do not have the resource on hand, that the way most pain medications work (Tylenol included) is inhibiting the brain's pain receptors so as to uptake less signal from the affected area (or, none, in some cases). I did find this:

"...by directly inhibiting the excitatory synaptic transmission via TRPV1 receptors expressed on terminals of C-fibers in the spinal dorsal horn. Contrary to previous studies on the brain, we failed to find the analgesic effect of acetaminophen/AM404 on the CB1 receptor on spinal dorsal horn neurons."

This directly suggests that all that is happening is that the signals from the affected area are arrested along the ascending pain pathway.

Might I remind you of your juvenile intrusion into this thread?: — Constance

I have provided several hundred words of analysis of your writing. You have addressed absolutely none of it - you've preened, ignored, and now devolved into pure ad hominem. That has nothing at all to do with me and my comportment. You are behaving like an angry 14 year old who has had their playstation taken away.

Did you not mention later that I was committing a non sequitur — Constance

Because you did. You did it constantly, and it gets called what it is. This isn't insulting in any way. It is a comment on your (terrible) writing style. If you cannot handle having your incoherence called out, perhaps don't write confused, incoherent posts on a philosophy forum inviting comment?

There is no argument here, no mention of anything remotely related to the OP, not even a single thoughtful construction. — Constance

Is it possible you are just not being honest? Not only possible - clearly true.

You got no more than your deserve, you inelegant ass. — Constance

You are now just being a dick. If this is how you respond to analyses of your bad writing, well... All i can do is laugh. You had the chance to engage with some ideas (thoroughly connected to your own writing, in direct response to it). You, instead, shied away from doing any thinking and just started insulting me. I've made some off hand comments about Continental philosophy and your writing being bad. If you identify so strongly with either thing you take them as personal insults, triggering your emotional outbursts, please get some help.

You really don't know Indonesia, do you? — Tarskian

I do, actually. It strikes me as quite odd that you'd assume a lack of knowledge when I;'ve provided the sources... Your link has absolutely nothing to do with anything under discussion, and I note you have not bothered to look at the sources provided.

He is almost surely exaggerating about "gay persecution": — Tarskian

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/malaysia-questions-18-people-arrested-lgbt-halloween-party-2022-10-31/
https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/growing-persecution-lgbtq-malaysia
https://www.article19.org/resources/malaysia-stop-the-criminalisation-of-lgbtqi-individuals/
https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/matty-healey-not-a-white-saviour-for-condemning-malaysian-homophobia/ (the article is somewhat irrelevant (as is Tatchell) but hte basis for it is what's interesting)
https://www.voanews.com/a/malaysian-authorities-raid-lgbt-halloween-party/6811548.html
https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/the-persecution-of-transgender-people-in-malaysia
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/malaysia-cannot-accept-same-sex-marriage-says-mahathir-idUSKCN1M10UW/

Yeah, totally exaggerating.

Concerning Indonesia, you don't know what you are talking about, do you? You simply have no clue whatsoever. — Tarskian

I, in fact, do. I take your continuous denial of the facts on board.

I have no clue about how things are in Malaysia for homosexual people. — Tarskian

No, you don't.

I personally consider casual sex to be rather lawless behavior. — Tarskian

This sentence is incoherent.
So back to the start, I guess:

I have, though, provided you multiple academic legal opinions to the contrary - at least oen from within Indonesia. Malaysia, I am less ofay with.
— AmadeusD

You really don't know Indonesia, do you? — Tarskian

Please, feel free to critique several reports from legal experts in the region.

I can't see the * comment, but this is plainly a misuse of 'literally'. If taken 'literally' it is, after investigation, entirely false. If taken as a description of appearances (i.e not to be taken literally) then it goes through. — AmadeusD

The stars and the Sun do orbit the Earth in the earthbound frame — SophistiCat

They do not. This is what 'taking it literally" precludes. This is not actually happening, no matter how it may appear so. Literally, the Earth turns and gives an appearance (which is not a true appearance) of other bodies orbiting the Earth (though, I've never understood this one. It seems clear to me the Earth turns on bare observation.. no matter). So, if it wasn't your intention, that's fine, but including the "literally" aspect means that the claim is false.

just not quite the way — SophistiCat

Not - at all - the way they ancients thought of it, which was a mistake. They described what appeared to be happening. It was not, and is not, 'literally' happening no matter the 'frame'. The frame is irrelevant to a literal reading.

In my Indonesian and Malaysian experience, it simply is. — Tarskian

I have, though, provided you multiple academic legal opinions to the contrary - at least oen from within Indonesia. Malaysia, I am less ofay with.

Again, what's on the books is irrelevant. — Tarskian

Then you are talking into the ether, from the ether. Which is fine, but it makes your responses fairly empty. You're defining-out some of the most important pieces of data to support a view point - not always horrid, but in this case, it is quite unfortunate as it amounts to moving the goalposts. If your entire view rests on "I don't think they would do that...." in response to bad policies, we ahve not much to discuss as that's just an opinion.

The above is simply unenforceable. — Tarskian

Plainly untrue. This is entirely enforceable, i'm unsure why you would suggest otherwise. If a report is filed, and the police process the report, it can be prosecuted. End of discussion. Whether someone is convicted is neither here nor there, but given the general biases against women in the penal system there, it is not at all out of the realm of reasonable assumption that at least one woman will be charged and convicted. THe possibilitiy is enough to uphold hte objection I'm making.

I am a foreigner in these countries. — Tarskian

This is not relevant to our discussion. If you're centering yourself, I don't know why you're talking to others about it.

You seem to be confused as to the role of the Islamic clergy — Tarskian

No. It appears that you pick and choose theory and practical results when it suits. Muslim Clergy are the ruling class by proxy in almost all Muslim-majority nations. Sharia is hte law of hte land? Ok, then Clergy are the judges. That's how that works. Pretending it's not because the titles don't reflect it is like saying the USA is not, in any way, oligarchical. It's a farce.

is substantially different from the army, the police, or the security forces in general. — Tarskian

They are all required in service of the faith and Islamic Law regulates how this is done (in all those cases). They are, all of them, theocratic outsources. If this were not the case, you could have a Catholic leader of the Iranian defense force (whatever it's named Properly).

Maybe this person is just trying to approach something extremely obscure. — I like sushi

Yes, i think so! Makes it quite hard to know where the competence ends for myself too lol

It's questionable whether pain is properly a sensation rather than a sort of idea. This is because pain crosses all the sense types. Generally we think of pain as a type of touch, but sharp sounds can be painful, bright lights can be painful, even the tastes and smells which we judge as very bad can be painful. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand it being questionable, but I do not understand actually thinking this. Pain is a sensation of touch with varying degrees to it - high-enough, and you experience a sensation. The aversion response is certainly an emotional/psychological aspect of pain, but that aspect is not necessary to describe pain. It is the ideal response to pain (well, pain accurately alerting one to an injury anyhow).
Loud-enough noises vibrate elements of the ear in "painful" ways such that the physical vibrations send the signal to "stop/avoid this noise" to the brain to avoid damage but often, these go either unheeded emotionally, or are overwhelmed by more, or higher-degree sensations (think about wtf someone needs to turn the music down to read road signs correctly).
Similarly with other senses - smells - some chilis are physically dangerous to smell due to the chemical composition of the air which carries the aroma in question - they can destroy cells in the nose/sinuses. These are, in the cases you've pointed out, anyway, the same thing(i.e a sensation) under different levels of description - but they are not 'different' ways of accessing the same mental phenomenon. For completeness, you mention taste - but 'painful' taste is that which is actually harming the tastebuds (bloody chilis do not like humans!!) Though, i take pain to be just that, anyway so perhaps 'idea' is actually correct anyway? Sensation, as best I can tell, is the mental percept resulting from a sensory stimulus. They can, in that way, simply be wrong if our machinery isn't calibrated to accurately convey the local issue (injury) to the brain for review.

Notice the use of "or" which allows ambiguity. — Metaphysician Undercover

If 'pain' can be characterised as a mental phenomenon, the 'or' is only indicating the cause (i.e what triggered the c/a-fibers). I'm unsure this allows for any per se ambiguity in the concept. The one exception here would be "emotional pain" which I think is incorrectly labelled pain rather than discomfort - which can, acceptably, be left very vague and subjective. "sensation" per se is not-well defined, i'll grant you - but it seems pretty obvious that a "bodily" sensation must be a the result of the senses. This then gets into how mental phenomena such as pain are merely triggered by the senses and so pain, within a dream, could not properly be described as sensation, but an idea. One which is triggered by the senses in some way, would be a sensation. Does that at least track with the delineation you're outlining?

The second definition — Metaphysician Undercover

I would say this is a good example where a word is referring to two obviously different things and we can jettison that second def. for the purpose of this discussion. I take it to be a metaphorical extension of the first, in any case, to apply to 'the body of persons' involved in the 'sensation' caused. As if humans were atomic parts of a whole. So, it seems irrelevant to discussing 'bodily sensation', as we seem to be doing.

what happens with the conscious awareness of pain. and consequently the use of the word "pain", is that it becomes a concept which we use to refer to a type of "sensation" which is emotionally based, rather than being based in sense perception — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think this is right, but I do think that this does happen, wrongly. The above responses go some way as to why. Emotions often conflict with the sensation of pain. I believe pain is, like vision, a result of sense perception but is simply open to the all the aberrations vision is open to, being that we never "view" the actual object in the visual field on this account. Pain is rightly not conceptualised as something 'taken in' from without, via the senses, but something produced by the sense-data of touch interacting with the sense organ (in this case, pain receptors/skin variously described as such under particular conditions of intensity, locality etc.. receiving pressure, angle, surface coverage, angle-of-motion etc.. to inform the signal to be sent). All senses are indirect in this way as I understand them both on the empirical, process related information, and the conceptual coherence (or, incoherence, really) involved. And they are all open to being wrong. I think holding a 1:1 concept of the internal representation of sensory data is probably wrong.

Pain is commonly contrasted with pleasure — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is, at best, misleading. The opposite to pain or pleasure is a lack of touch sensation. Nothing to trigger a percept of either. They aren't entirely dispositional states - 'pleasure' can be characterized as uncomfortable, and pain as satisfying.

In this way, the emotionally based feeling, or sensation, has a causal object, but the object is a good, as a goal or objective, rather than a sense percept. — Metaphysician Undercover

This, to me, went completely off the rails right before this conclusion. Introducing 'the Good' made this almost impossible for me to wade into, and I apologise as it seems to just not make much sense as a result. I realise that's as likely to be me missing something!

DELETED

If you don't sign any marriage-related government documents, these governments simply won't get involved. — Tarskian

Patently false. But, even so, you've acknowledge that the form of government violates your (1) in those cases. I understand what you're trying to get at, but its simply not the case.

I spent one whole year in Indonesia — Tarskian

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/08/indonesia-new-criminal-code-disastrous-rights Do not get started on Indonesia. Being an atheist is theoretically punishable by death (not the dumbest law on the books, it seems). https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/1/2
https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=ilrev
https://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2008/44.pdf

mandatory charity — Tarskian

Is a complete contradiction. Smelling anything yet?

Again, sexual regulations are based on self-discipline. — Tarskian

No. Regulations are there to curb lacks of self-discipline. And apparently, 'discipline' means doing what the law says. This is a nonsense response.

From your same link (Wikipedia no less!!):
Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen still legally enforce Zakat, and a couple others regulate it at a state level.. Further, your quoted extract simply puts Allah in the place of hte 'local mob overlords' as to motivating factors. To put it in 'wittier' terms, a 'Cosmic North Korea' which ensures you pay your fucking taxes. AND Allah doesn't exist. So this is many many times worse than an enforced taxation system. Can you imagine the mid-east without Oil? Nope. The 20th century would not have been kind.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no country in the world that would try to enforce mandatory charity on foreigners. — Tarskian

What does this have to do with anything?

I personally do not trust the local ruling mafia for that job. — Tarskian

It sounds as if you would trust a Global Theocratic Hegemony tho?

Putting them together in non-duality is very difficult. Maybe i can do it someday — Gregory

Fair enough. I think this might have been what I teasing out. I'm unsure, as I didn't expect anything particular LOL.

Thank you.

Ok cool. That clarifies most of what you've said, and makes a couple of things more opaque :sweat:
But, thank you - my confusion is now slain.

Oh, I see where you've come from now.

Hmmm, I do not think that is the case. I don't think Europe will actually tolerate what underlies your point there (which is a valid one).
"no tolerance for intolerance no more". We have enough (and dare I speak vaguely semi-almost positively here..) hard-line anti-non-western types to hold hte fort, I think. And most of them love guns!

Most governments outside the West are acceptable to me and generally meet my requirements. — Tarskian

No, they don't. The majority of governments outside of the west violate either (1) via religious/sex-specific regulation or violates the underlying deception in your response to tax questions. For example, interest on capital is against Sharia - but if a Sharia country asked you to 'donate' you'd be doing the same thing as paying a tax. It should be clear though, that tax is not illegal under Sharia - it is just worded in esoteric terms (you can have a read here - pay attention to statements such as "The State achieves this by imposing taxes upon the Muslims such that these needs and interests are met without being exceeded. These taxes should only be taken from people’s surplus wealth." and its inferences.

The problem there, then, even if you are find with the interest-less tax system, is swallowing theocracy dedicated to a clearly illogical, unsubstantiated story about pedophile warlord.

Emergent consciousness is certainly a fact psychologically. We develope in stages thru life. The philosophical aspect is different for me. — Gregory

Yes, I think this is a fairly clear take on how the difference obtains - your underlined doesn't relate to the philosophical issues much. But in practical terms, this is what we're trying to explain.

I think these other ideas are fertile, but incomplete (as to concepts) the way you've put them forward. An eg:

The self is certainly a substance in that the human body is a substance. — Gregory

This seems to require mind-body dualism, or a solution to the interaction problem immediately. So, to get around this, I would say lets be a bit more careful:

The body is an object. The 'self' is a being (ontologically) but consists in something over-and-above the body. Again, I don't accept this theory - But i think this formulation gives you room to clarify what you are taking to be "the self" aside from the physical body - acknowledging we are more than the body. (that's a thinly veiled question to you! LOL).

Wittgenstein enthralled himself with ambiguity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ain't that the truth. I think this makes a lot of commentary on him redundant, too. Russell obviously had some insight, and the original translators too but overall, so much murkiness due to his ambiguous language (ironic, lol) as to what's being discussed.

Can you see something (relatively simple 'something') that could be a difference between pain and colour as sensations? Or a way in whcih one is not a sensation the way the other is and therefore supporting Witty's endless assurances that our language is hte problem, and not hte problems. LOL.

West meets Islam. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel is on the fringes of 'the West' to be fair, though. It's not as if the we're going to scramble to her defence in a religious conflict. I think this is partially why many have just stayed out of it and commented only on aid efforts.

Could it be that both have more than "meets the eye"? — Gregory

Certainly could., and I personally don't quite have positions on those. "The self" to me needs to align with identity, which i essentially do not think is coherent (in terms of 'persons'). Tricky to say...

LMAOOOO. Fair enough

There's a bit of an identity crisis here. — creativesoul

Ah, no (after reading your response), this is my bad. "any given red pen" should have been the phrase, because it matters not what instance we're talking about. Either pens can be red, whether or not we know they are, or they can only be red in virtue of our experiencing them as red. One must trump the other, save for lower-level disagreements.

So, yes. — creativesoul

Okay. This may clarify some of what I was confused about in your different phrasings and descriptions.

I wouldn't say that. — creativesoul

What do you take the pen to be when it isn't being perceived. Red? Or Red-causing? What element of it is red, when not being perceived? This is what I am not able to ascertain in any of these realist accounts. What makes the pen red "out there" (we know that 'use' is what makes it a pen, so I'm halfway in understanding the position).

the real world issue of why transport planning is in a bind. — apokrisis

I see this as an intractable problem. I think 'your' side, as it were takes the "just get on board already" take. If not, fair enough - it feels as if your solution would be to (legislate?) regulate against either single-user or less-than-five-user motor transport, so that cycling and hte like can flourish. I think this is misguided and a bit of a reversion, in terms of historical development (note: that does not make it bad).

But in the end, I had the choice. That makes a big difference. — apokrisis

This is likely relevant, but when i did have the choice I had actually saved a fund to leave (unexpected child as spanner, in this story).

But since the late 1990's, we've begun to resemble the US in as much as we borrow their identity politics and right wing tropes. — Tom Storm

The left in Australia has taken after the US far more than the right.

Ok, right, so then there's a Yes/No answer here:

Are you suggesting the Red Pen is actually out there, in the world, whether or not it is perceived?

And that the mind merely does the perceiving of a mind-independent red pen? Yes? No?

Above pls LOL

This skips over what I am asking you to point out - which is how that actually is the case if we're saying "red pen" is a phenomena of the mind.

You aren't adequately addressing the question. It is not plain or clear what you mean, because your claim relies on several things i am wanting clarity on.

If I am entirely misapprehending you, and you actually hold the position that "A red pen" exists out there, on the table, regardless of any facts of perception then my response is entirely inapt, and this goes back a few pages... That seems plainly wrong to me. But you're holding that there is a red pen in one instance, and not the other two. I want to know why you think that... not jus reassert it?

NB: The I responded when all you had said was "Too bad". That certainly seemed like bad faith, no?

So are there countries where you would be sure that you would hate them less? — apokrisis

I can't be sure, obviously (i'm sure from without, i'd think this about NZ! My family certainly did). But, on best-estimations: Ireland, Italy, USA(parts thereof), Canada (parts thereof), Japan (parts thereof), Hong Kong, and many others.

Again, public transport is not a particularly large factor. You seem to be thinking that it is, and then assuming I have some utopia in mind. I don't. I just hate living in NZ. The rest can be ignored, it seems. Their travel habits don't matter to me, other than noting things like getting around NYC was infinitely easier, more fun and fulfilling than is getting around AKL (or WGT when im there). My opinions on public travel (which, in this case was specifically about the bad attitudes of cyclists who think they are paragons of morally-informed social justice or something to the point of being routinely abusive) aren't all that relevant to my hating NZ, or preferring elsewhere. Clearly, this is no longer apt for this thread. If you care, feel free to PM with any questions, but I assume its uninteresting in the extreme to you. FAir enough too.

We already drew and maintained the distinctions between seeing, hallucinating, and dreaming?

Those still hold. — creativesoul

Am I am asking for a justification. Intuitively, I am (and have been) agreeing with you. They are clearly different experiences. My point in these last two comments has been to tease out what you see as different between them, if what we're happy to say is that all three obtain in the mind.

There are no red pens in hallucinations and/or dreams thereof. — creativesoul

I think this is incorrect, depending on your response to what the difference would be between these and the "seeing" instance. That's all I'm asking... I would call it incorrect if we cannot pick out a feature of hte 'actual' seeing of a Red pen in contrast to the other two. I hve to say, this seemed clear to me rereading the exchange.

The other things you've replied seem to assume something other htan the above, so ill wait for a response here before approaching them, if the seem relevant at that point :)

Hmmm, what would that have to do with what I've said? The claim is, roughly: Whether or not one takes the media seriously is based on whether it supports their current pet point-to-be-made".
The source is irrelevant unless you want to talk about bias in picking one's sources (even more obvious there, in the main as Ground News shows with statistical analysis of most articles it posts as to who is publishing/reading those stories/takes).

Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen in general? I have given an example (which more starkly illustrates this, as the source doesn't align, but the content does, with expectation).

Heres another
And another
Another
More

This seems a fairly obvious phenomena no? I'm not using this to impugn anyone in particular.

When 'you' have biological machinery close enough to our own. — creativesoul

This is unfortunately, quite unhelpful. That obtains in all three cases and provides no basis to delineate.

What difference are you drawing/maintaining? If it's unacceptably weak, then why mention it? — creativesoul

None. This is literally something I am asking you to address. You drew the distinction. I would like a conceptual analysis of the difference between the three cases. If that distinction is unacceptably weak (I am questioning whether it is and asking for clarity)) why did you mention it?

I see the distinction you made as weak - I am trying to have you explain what it is in your mind, so we can talk about it.

Never said it was; — Mww

self’s consciousness of it, which just is the quality of his state. — Mww

This is a circle my guy. Not uncommon in Kant, it seems. Onward..

So a cat born in a barn is not a cow? Curious. Food for thought. — Lionino

LMAO, nice.

I blame your utter insanity. — unenlightened

unenlightened it is :P

Don't be ungrateful to the country that allows you to reside there. — javi2541997

Are you joking, or just being weird again? This country doesn't "allow" me to reside here. It is legally obligated to accept me here.

you cannot have that animosity with New Zealand — javi2541997

Yes. Yes I can.

Do your kids feel insecure when they come back from school, for example? Is the system so corrupt that it is impossible to manage things with public administration? — javi2541997

I don't know why, or what exactly you're asking. It has nothing to do with me disliking, very strongly, living in New Zealand. It is not, in any way, relevant, to you find other faults with a different place. Dislike my attitude all you want mate.

Cars are a trap to make people feel the fallacy of 'freedom' — javi2541997

Right-o mate. Can't get on board with this type of attitude :P

So, don't be ungrateful to NZ. — javi2541997

This is inappropriate. This entire exchange is bizarre. It is not on others to influence or inform how i feel about the country in which i've lived in for 28 years.

So it decided to just plunge in and get it done how it could. — apokrisis

Which is not the worst thing in the world. (not that you've suggested this..) I've not intimated NZ is the worst country in the world. I just hate it here. That's all. Various reason, largely biases and personal disposition. Not sure what's controversial getting you lot up in arms.

Now the elegant villa in the tree lined street can suddenly find two three storey apartment blocks - made of shit panelling and with a concrete pad for half a dozen cars - looming over it within a year. — apokrisis

This seems to illustrate you're operating from the same place as i am. That's fine. You like NZ and see hopeful ways forward. I would prefer to let this country stew in its predictable small-pondedness and go elsewhere for better pasture (in many ways - public transport is low on the list - its just the subject of the thread).

Amadeus complained about New Zealand public transport, but how many people in Teruel or Jaén would give for some of it! — javi2541997

This is exactly whataboutism.

Are implying that there is a world beyond appearances that can somehow be known? — SophistiCat

A "world beyond appearances" in this case, is just the world. It is not veridical to claim the stars and Sun orbit the Earth. It is a cheap and cheerful heuristic - probably to ensure correct directionality when reading stars. We now have telescopes, and better thinking. Does this mean it was true then, but not now?

Hmm. I agree prima facie with your formulation. But, this presents a bit of an issue to me.
When do you actually 'see' a Red pen?
Given that we only call the pen 'red' by convention, can this particular difference (realistically, the proximity to the trigger (whereas dreaming is far askance)) really do much lifting?
In all three cases we're experiencing the event of 'looking at an object we apprehend as a pen which will write with red ink", right? We're trying to delineate between them with levels of 'world-aptness' to ascertain whether colour obtains within, or without.

(Aside: deception also causes an issue with Banno's account quite directly - hand me that red pen. *hands you a "blue pen' which is coloured Red externally* - can you see the muddle here? Not rhetorical - if I'm missing or overthinking, please help! lol)

If the result of all this is that we never 'actually' see a red pen, when contrasting several obviously different experiences I'm unsure where that would leave us.. Uncomfortable, no doubt lol. And the question is no longer open to us. Some of this is linguistic though. When I say "see" I only mean to say that I currrently "mentally apprehend that which I have come to believe is X". Beyond this, I can't say i'm "seeing" any objects. Looking at them, sure.

LOL fair enough then mate.

The US is not the democracy it defended in world wars. Both the Republicans and Democrats are promising to take care of us, leaving us nothing to do but obey and be thankful we are so well cared for. — Athena

Yes, I see this. But there is a tenuous, speculative connection to fascism involved in the analysis. Is there something deeper being indicated here?

I'd love to think myself so clever that I pierced this complex philosophy, but I find that hard to believe. — Hanover

Witty's? You need only be about a 16 year old who is not on Tik Tok to understand that he is full of it, most of hte time, and wants to upend things because its fun. Clever is what he was. I would want to be clear. Something he seemed entirely incapable of.

Phenomenally, there isn't. But I don't think he picked up what you were asking. Which is, cause (otherwise, his answer is a complete one and presents no issues). The cause differs in the three cases (the second two, its possible they don't at-base, but they are related experiences anyway).

And I am sorry you wasted your money on a vacuous education in a field that has all but been abandoned. — Constance

You seem to be ignorant to the entire world of philosophy. And a dick.

https://againstprofphil.org/author/z/
https://academic-sexual-misconduct-database.org/person/robert-hanna

This is the company you're keeping. Reflect.

This is what hierarchies ought aim for? — Moliere

I think what's being said is that, unless hijacked from without, this is what hierarchies do as a matter of course, rather htan an aim of them. It is their function. I - in a rough and ready sense - would agree. Though, it's a flimsy agreement LOL